George Mudie: Yes. Special schools.

Laura Moffatt: In Crawley we have a brand new school for young people and children with special educational needs called Manor Green. It is proving to be one of the most wonderful innovations for parents and children in my area. But West Sussex county council has decided that because the school has moved slightly closer to many parents, they cannot now get travel arrangements for their children. Will my right hon. Friend look at that issue and find a way to compel West Sussex? Parents in my area who are trying to get three or four children to this fantastic new school, where they desperately want them to go, are finding that West Sussex has put enormous difficulties in their path.

Beverley Hughes: As I set out, there has been a full review of special schools, leading up to the strategy that was published last year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must be aware of that. The strategy identified that a further and closer look needed to be made of the provision for the children with very high level complex needs whom he identifies. Those children present the most challenges to local authorities.
	Choice is absolutely paramount. Our changes to the Education Act 1981 made the choice for parents of children with special needs more effective. There has been a great deal of debate and some misunderstanding about the current position in the law and in Government guidance. When any parent of a child with special needs states a preference for a special school, there is no presumption of inclusion in a mainstream school and the local authority has to make the recommendation for the placement on the basis of the usual criteria: the needs of that child, the needs of other children and the issue of resources. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, in addition to that and at every step of the way, there is a robust system of appeal for parents—an appeal if they are refused an assessment, an appeal if they are refused a statement and an appeal if the statement does not include their preferred special school. Choice for parents is paramount, and I think that we have a system that gives parents choice and that supports that choice with a robust appeals system.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: How many young people in (a) Durham and (b) England have been granted education maintenance allowances.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the value and importance of apprenticeships. During the general election campaign, I knocked on doors and heard people say, "I'll tell you what you should do for young people: bring back apprenticeships." We have already done so, but this is one of those issues that do not get much popular recognition. We are already talking about moving from having some 50,000 apprenticeships in 1997 to having 250,000 or 300,000 a year.
	I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that I will attend the annual apprenticeships awards ceremony this evening. I am looking forward to taking a very good opportunity publicly to thank and recognise the successful and excellent apprentices that we shall see tonight, as well as those in our colleges who are transferring their skills so that the talented craftspeople in our FE sector can be valued as well.

Stephen Williams: The 3,200 international students in Bristol contribute more than £28 million in fee income to the two universities in the city, inject millions more into the local economy and contribute greatly to the city's intellectual and cultural life. Given the Government's decision to increase entry visa fees by 136 per cent. from 1 July, does the Minister agree that that sends the wrong signal to students who are considering whether to come to this country or go to one of our competitors? Will he ask his ministerial colleagues, perhaps even the Prime Minister, given the initiative that Minister mentioned, to reconsider the decision?

Geoff Hoon: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 20 June—Second Reading of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
	Tuesday 21 June—Second Reading of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
	Wednesday 22 June—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on special schools and special educational needs followed by a debate entitled "Threat to the Integrity of the Electoral System". Both arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 23 June—Second Reading of the Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Bill.
	Friday 24 June—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week after will be:
	Monday 27 June—Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.
	Tuesday 28 June—Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill.
	Wednesday 29 June—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 30 June. There will be a debate on Africa on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	At 6 pm the House will be asked to approve all outstanding estimates.
	Friday 1 July—The House will not be sitting.

Chris Grayling: I am delighted to hear that we finally have a date for the Identity Cards Bill. We look forward to what will no doubt be a vigorous debate.
	Will the Leader of the House give us, as a matter of urgency, an opportunity to discuss the Home Secretary's decision to ban protests from a wide area around the Palace of Westminster? The Government have already tried to introduce house arrest without trial; now they want to ban political protests around the mother of Parliaments. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that such actions make it more difficult for this country to stand on the moral high ground when criticising repressive regimes such as those in Burma and Zimbabwe?
	Talking of Zimbabwe, last week the right hon. Gentleman brushed off my request for a statement on the situation there. He will have read in today's papers that circumstances in Zimbabwe continue to go from bad to worse. Why is it not possible for a Foreign Office Minister to come to the House and tell us what the Government are doing to help to forge an international response to the problems?
	May we have an early debate on the suspension of the regulations introduced in the House two years ago to implement the food supplements directive? The right hon. Gentleman will know that the European Court of Justice has made a provisional decision that the directive cannot stand, but the regulations will still come into force on 1 August. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity to suspend them, so that organisations no longer have to work with them although they may be set aside shortly? That would remove the black cloud that currently hangs over the industry.
	Did the Leader of the House have an opportunity to drop in to the "race against time" lobby on Duchenne muscular dystrophy earlier this week? As he will know, this is a terrible disease which threatens the lives of many children in my constituency and, I suspect, in his. Will he make time for a debate so that we can discuss the research programme that is trying to sort out the problem and deliver a real solution for those children, so that we can discuss ways of helping to give them a better future?
	Finally, may we have a debate on local dialects so that the House can congratulate the Leader of the House on his success in entering the dictionary of cockney rhyming slang? The website cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk gives the example:
	"You're a right Geoff Hoon you are."
	It appears under the eye-catching heading
	"What on earth does 'Geoff Hoon' mean?"

Geoff Hoon: Over the past few weeks I have become used to being grateful for the kind observations emanating from the Opposition Front Bench, not least in relation to identity cards. I am sure that Labour Members look forward to discovering what precisely is the Opposition's position on that important issue. When they find their identity, no doubt we shall all be reassured.
	I must say the same in respect of political protests in and around the precincts of Parliament. Following a detailed debate, the Government have sought to put into legislation the recommendations of the cross-party Procedure Committee, which in the last Parliament was chaired by a Conservative Member. If the Opposition Front Bench is now disowning the results of a detailed piece of work done in the House by, among others, Conservative Members, I regard that as a matter of considerable regret.
	The hon. Gentleman raised again, quite properly, the question of Zimbabwe. As I said a few minutes ago, an Opposition day is forthcoming. We have yet to hear from the Opposition what the subject of the debate will be, but it presents the hon. Gentleman with a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate just how sincere he is by ensuring that Zimbabwe is debated. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House would be delighted about that.
	We shall certainly look carefully at the decision by the European Court of Justice on food supplements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will ensure that we observe the terms of the judgment precisely. As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the regulations be suspended, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend writes to him accordingly.
	The disease research programme is important, and obviously the House will have to consider it carefully in due course.
	I am sure that the reference in the new dictionary is meant to be entirely complimentary.

David Winnick: I am trying to be as helpful as always. Would it not be useful if prior to the Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill there was a full and frank discussion in Cabinet, as there was originally, and during which some Cabinet members apparently expressed reservations? Such a full and frank discussion would give the Cabinet an opportunity to decide whether the measure should go through, bearing in mind the concerns expressed in the past 18 months to two years about the possible failure of biometrics—there seems to be not much doubt about that—and the vast expense: it is now being said that the card will cost in the region of £300 rather than the original sum. Should not all that be taken into account before 28 June?

David Heath: I welcome the full day's debate on Africa, which I requested last week. With such prompt service, I must clearly be careful what I ask for in future.
	The right hon. Gentleman will have heard his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say, in answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy), that he will soon bring forward proposals for the proper scrutiny of European legislation. Given that we had yet another Adjournment debate on the European Union yesterday, which I am sure was valuable in its way but which was unfocused, is not there a clear need to have a proper process of scrutiny of what our Ministers do in the Council on behalf of this country? At the moment, we have no such scrutiny proposals.
	Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the report issued today by the Public Accounts Committee on non-attendance at court, which has become a very significant problem? Might we also debate the comments of the chief constable of Avon and Somerset, Colin Port, who suggests that perhaps what we need is a national agency, along the lines of the US marshals, responsible for tracking down fugitives and bringing them to justice? That would certainly merit debate.
	Can we have a standing slot, on a regular basis, for a debate that might be called, "New policies announced by Ministers but for which details have unaccountably never been given to the House"? There we could, for instance, consider the very ambitious plans announced for first-time buyers, which we still do not know anything about, and discover when the free travel for pensioners on buses will be implemented, which is a question that is often asked. Moreover, it might decrease the number of opportunities that Ministers have for making statements outside this House instead of coming here and making a proper statement.
	Lastly, could we have a debate on the very serious medical condition of amnesia? It seems to me that some right hon. and hon. Members simply cannot remember the position that they took only a matter of months ago on ID cards, demonstrations in Parliament square, or the extradition treaty with the United States.

Geoff Hoon: On amnesia, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the very considerable work of the Modernisation Committee on European scrutiny. I have been looking carefully at those recommendations. It is a matter that we need to resolve. I agree that it is important that we should improve the quality and quantity of European scrutiny. It is clear from elections here and votes in countries such as France and Holland that the European population is anxious to see an improvement in the way in which we deal with European issues. I am sure that this House, which has always set the standard for scrutiny, will look carefully at the proposals when they are brought forward, and when I have thought about them.
	As for the PAC report on non-attendance at court, we very much welcome those recommendations. A great deal of work has been done over a number of years to improve case management before the courts, and it is obviously necessary that that should continue. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's observations in that respect. It is of course the case that Ministers always report new policies to the House first, and I have continued to emphasise that to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are especially concerned about that, and I give you my assurance that my colleagues will observe the proper rules and practice of the House to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members are fully informed as new policies are announced.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations on ID cards, although I daresay that they were directed not at the Government but at other Opposition Members. The Liberal Democrats have always been consistent on the issue, but sadly they have been consistently wrong.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that important issue. The Government deplore all anti-semitism, especially the appalling expression of it that we saw in her constituency recently. Before the general election, I spoke at the annual fundraising meeting of the Community Security Trust, which does so much important work protecting our Jewish community. It is important that we do not allow anti-semitism to operate in this country.

Geoff Hoon: I fondly imagined that my change of position after the general election would relieve me of the pleasurable responsibility of responding to the hon. Gentleman on defence matters. I am delighted that he has continued to haunt me with these issues, and I assure him that there has been no change in the Government's position in respect of the commitment made in the 1998 strategic defence review to acquire two large aircraft carriers. He will understand that it takes a little longer to build those carriers in reality than may have been the case when he used to build their Airfix equivalents.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government recognise that this is a vitally important issue, as the proposals in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill to which he has referred demonstrate. I am sure that he and other hon. Members will be able to table amendments in due course if they judge that the Government are not taking sufficient powers. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes this matter very seriously indeed, which is why it has been included in that Bill.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend will know that the House authorities are looking carefully at ways to improve visitor access to Parliament. It is important that we encourage younger people, in particular, to understand the processes by which legislation is passed and Ministers held accountable. That work is in hand, and I am confident that we will be able to improve the arrangements in future.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend will know that we are waiting for the Volker commission's final report on the oil-for-food scandal, which seems to get ever deeper and murkier. Does he agree that the House should have every opportunity to look at that report to determine the implications for the UK, and in particular its relations with other countries and the UN? The US is carrying out its own investigation, and that process should be replicated here.

Peter Hain: I am happy to do that. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and that of other north Wales MPs, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who has just been muttering in my ear about the matter. I am advised that the reduction in service will be temporary, to allow the upgrading of the west coast main line, and it is expected that the services will be reinstated. I hope that advice is correct, but if it is not, I shall inform the hon. Gentleman.
	The Bevan Foundation has identified communications as a major issue that needs to be tackled to develop the south Wales valleys. Too many places are isolated by poor communications, even though some are relatively close to the main centres of population.
	As well as advancing our economic and social objectives, a properly integrated transport system is crucial for fulfilling our green agenda. Road transport accounts for more than 20 per cent. of all UK carbon emissions, and by reducing the need for people to travel by car, we can help to reduce the overall impact of personal transport on global warming. As a Government, we are determined to think long term about how to ensure that our transport system best serves the people of Wales and those economic, social and environmental objectives.

Peter Hain: That is an important debate. We are talking about a programme that cannot come in for another 10 or 15 years. All those matters, including how Wales would fit into the scheme, will be debated and resolved, and my hon. Friend is welcome to contribute to that process. We should not fear the principle, however, and I am glad that it has been widely welcomed throughout the political spectrum and across public opinion. We must reduce congestion on our roads or they will jam up. A 4 per cent. reduction in traffic, especially at peak times, could reduce congestion by up to 40 per cent. If we can manage the situation better through road pricing we may escape the gridlock that awaits us. The Bill will make that much easier to manage in Wales—if not to solve—by allowing much more integrated forms of public transport.
	I rather doubt that Wales would have flexibility to set prices. Even on the basis of the White Paper, whereby primary powers on transport and other matters would be devolved, I doubt that what is in essence a fiscal issue could be a Wales-only matter. However, that is for debate.

Peter Hain: No, I would not be so uncharitable as to suggest that. These are early days, and the issues all have to be discussed. Although we will discuss this, I was making the point that I rather doubt that we could have a different road-pricing regime for Wales from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Albert Owen: My right hon. Friend mentioned congestion on bridges, and there is absolute chaos, particularly at bank holidays, on the Menai and Britannia bridges that connect Anglesey to the mainland. Will he agree to meet me and a delegation to discuss the problem and raise it in bilateral meetings with the Assembly Government?

Betty Williams: Does my right hon. Friend foresee more joined-up thinking between train operating companies within Wales? The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has already made a point about Virgin Trains services, but, with the newly published summer timetable, we have the ridiculous situation in which a train from Blaenau Ffestiniog arrives at Llandudno junction at 10.03 and the Virgin Trains service leaves at 10.03. People are not able to make that connection. We need more joined-up thinking by the train operating companies if we are to succeed.

Lembit �pik: The Secretary of State is in the happy position of being able to survey at close hand an example of successful integrated transport links in Northern Ireland, where the buses and trains are integrated to a laudable degree. May I suggest therefore that it would be instructive and helpful to use the Northern Ireland success story as a model for what might be achieved in Wales along the lines that the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) has suggested?

Peter Hain: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's constructive advice. I shall certainly look at that model, but I am probably not yet as up to speed on the integrated transport system in Northern Ireland as he is.
	There has been major investment in the valley lines, leading to the restoration of rail services in some areas for the first time since the Beeching cuts of 40 years ago. For example, the vale of Glamorgan line has been reopened to passenger services and work is in hand to commence passenger services on the Ebbw Vale line in 200607.

Peter Hain: I think that is being addressed, but the commitment to sustainable development, and the fact that the Assembly has that as an objective, was one of the pioneering aspects of the Government of Wales Act 1998. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary points out to me that the duty is in clause 1(1)(a) of the Bill, so my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) can determine whether the provision meets her objectives.
	Traffic growth in Wales has outstripped that in the rest of the UK in recent years and, with a booming Welsh economy, that trend is likely to continue. Wales also has higher than average rates of dependency on private cars for travel to work, despite the fact that we have some of the shortest commuter journeys in Britain. On public transport, our major cities are lagging behind others in the UK where incremental improvements have been made over several years. However, the Assembly's limited and fragmentary transport powers have restricted its ability to deal effectively with the challenges that we face and deliver a first-class integrated transport system.
	The lack of transport powers has long been recognised. As far back as 1997, the Welsh transport advisory group, which I chaired as a Welsh Office Minister, started examining the transport legacy that the Assembly would inherit. Subsequently, both the Assembly's cross-party Environment, Planning and Transport Committee and the House's Welsh Affairs Committee have concluded that the Assembly requires additional powers. There was thus broad agreement on the legislative changes needed to take Wales into a new transport age, which was why we brought forward the draft Transport (Wales) Bill in May last year. Following pre-legislative scrutiny as well as an extensive public consultation, the draft Bill has been refined into the Bill that is now before us.
	There will be a new statutory duty on the Assembly to develop and implement policies for the promotion of safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facilities and services. The Assembly will also be required to prepare and publish a Wales transport strategy to set out those policies and how they will be implemented. The Assembly intends to consult widely with all stakeholders when drawing up the strategy.
	Where local authorities are already required to prepare local transport plans, the Bill will now provide a formal mechanism to ensure that those plans are consistent with the Assembly's overall vision for transport in Wales. To ensure that local transport plans are consistent with the Wales transport strategy, they will need to be submitted to the Assembly for approval. Refusing approval will be possible only with the approval of the Assembly in plenary session. I anticipate that such cases will be wholly exceptional and that the Bill will thus not mean that local transport planning will be taken out of the hands of local authorities.
	Another important element of the Bill is the provision to facilitate greater joint working by local authorities to produce transport plans, which is essential to make real improvements in key transport corridors. The particular geography of Walesa fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referredmeans that transport issues often cross local authority boundaries and thus need to be tackled regionally. The best example of that is of course south-east Wales, which covers 10 local authority areas and contains about half the population of Wales. Here there is a pattern of travel-to-work movements from the valleys into Cardiff and Newport that is superimposed on more strategic east-west movement along the M4 corridor and, to a lesser extent, the A465 heads of the valleys road.
	A regional approach would address both public transport and road traffic management and deal effectively with the interface with the strategic trunk road network, which is why the Assembly has identified south-east Wales as an area that might benefit from one of the other key powers in the Bill: the power to establish joint transport authorities. Powers granted to a joint transport authority might, for example, include the co-ordination of bus timetables, a standardised approach towards bus lanes and bus stops and improved services across local authority boundaries.
	The next main provision of the Bill will enable the Assembly to provide funding for transport services directly to transport operators to ensure that unmet transport needs in Wales are met. Currently the Assembly has to rely on a patchwork of different Acts, some of which date back to 1919. For example, the new power might be used to support services that cross several local authority boundaries to implement the Assembly's long-distance bus and coach strategy. The Bill will also give the Assembly the power to provide revenue payments to airline operators or capital funding for new airport facilities, subject of course to the constraints of European Commission competition law. That will allow the Assembly to implement its policies on intra-Wales scheduled air services, for example.

Peter Hain: That is masses of more money. In fact, it is double the miserable inheritance that we were left by the Conservative Government. It would stand in sorry contrast to the desperate state that transport in Wales would be in if Plaid Cymru ever got its wish and hived Wales off into independence. There are free bus passes for pensioners and the disabled. The extra subsidy for rural bus services has made a big improvement, although there is still a lot to do. There is extra road building, such as the 300 million heads of the valley A465 road, and extra road upgrading. On rail, there is the Ebbw Vale and the Vale of Glamorgan lines to consider. Those advances in transport provision are on the back of the unprecedented economic stability, success and prosperity that the Labour Government have delivered for Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. Long may it continue under this Government because it would be jeopardised by a Conservative Government.

Peter Hain: Most of that increase was eaten up by inflation. The hon. Gentleman knows that under the Conservative Government of that period, the inflation rate was more than double what it has been under Labour. I know from personal experience of coming into the old Welsh Office in May 1997 that funding was at a dreadful level for education, health and transport. We set about the task of rebuilding Wales's infrastructure. I am surpriseduppity though he isthat he has the gall to challenge me on public spending of all things when the Conservative Government remorselessly cut public spending, closed hospitals, reduced education provision and saw the transport system go down the tubes in Wales. That is the reality.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman has made his point to the Minister. We will seek to tease out the details in Committee. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the point to the Government's attention. The wording suggests that there is compulsion without any compulsory obligation, so we will seek clarification.
	The director of the Welsh Local Government Association said:
	Reorganisation with no substantial additional investment is not a recipe for service delivery success.
	What reassurance can the Government give that appropriate and adequate funding will be available for changes proposed to local authorities' responsibilities? The Bill states:
	The Assembly may give financial assistance to . . . joint transport authorities, and . . . local authorities in Wales.
	Can the Minister confirm more precisely whether joint transport authorities will be funded from local authority funds or whether the money will come from the Assembly? Would there be a practice for applying for grants by the joint transport authorities? If so, what would determine funding allocations? We must have further information on the procedure that will be involved in implementing the provisions. If the Assembly can choose whether to give funds, surely the likelihood is that many local authorities will be left to foot an increased transport bill without assistance.
	Bus Users UK reports that many authorities are currently
	understaffed and spending too little money
	on providing public transport services, which will further increase the cost of improvements. Local authorities are already struggling against the Assembly's habit of changing their responsibilities without providing extra funds.
	The running costs of a JTA are assumed to be approximately 1 million per annum in addition to the 100,000 to 200,000 of set-up costs. What impact will that have on the taxpayers of Wales and what assurance do we have that Welsh taxpayers' money will be spent wisely? Much of the 1 million running costs will be spent on the authority's senior management and accommodation, which sounds like an opportunity to create costly administration and support teams, new quangos and more bureaucracy. The attempt better to co-ordinate policy and delivery is admirable, but it threatens to create another costly tier of administration, which is a risk that must be monitored closely.
	The wider co-ordination of transport strategy clearly has some merits, not least in attracting the highest quality staff and projects. Nevertheless, JTAs open up the possibility of accountability being taken away from the Assembly and the Welsh Transport Minister. If those developments are to work for the benefit of the people of Wales, the implementation and management of JTAs must be monitored closely. We must also know those bodies' precise powers, which responsibilities will be left in the hands of the Assembly and which responsibilities will be transferred. How will the JTAs and the Assembly be held accountable for their actions?
	Does the Minister know which powers the Assembly is likely to confer on JTAs under the provision in clause 5 on discharging specified transport functions to regions of Wales? We must be certain that the opportunity to make positive changes to the delivery of transport in Wales is taken. The Confederation of Passenger Transport Wales has suggested increasing enforcement powers for bus priority schemes. Bus lanes in Wales would be much more effective if they were better monitored and if the law were enforced, and giving a local authorities the power to control aspects of public transport could be very successful
	In the development of public transport as a feasible alternative to cars, it is essential that every possible move is taken to assist the delivery of those services. We hope that JTAs will help the delivery of Welsh public transport services, but we have many reservations. It is not clear whether the Assembly will have the power to direct JTAs to work together in providing services that cross each others boundaries, which is clearly a must in delivering integrated transport, especially in areas such as national parks where public transport provision is often specialised and where there is no one owner of responsibility. That point is also important with regard to cross-border transport services.
	The Minister must clarify the situation for not only Welsh transport providers, but those from across the border. Can English and Welsh local authorities form JTAs, and if so, how will they work? Do we face the possibility of an all-Wales body here? If so, we must scrutinise that move very carefully because it would risk unnecessary remoteness and expense and should be strongly opposed.
	Many unanswered questions remain on the provision of public passenger transport services. What extra funding will be required for that provision? What conditions will the Assembly use to determine the necessity of transport requirements? Furthermore, any power that the Assembly intends to grant must be exercised with regard to its effect on other transport services and strategies across the UK and the ability of the infrastructure to provide an effective network.
	We broadly support the idea of a public transport users committee for Wales, but we must carefully monitor its development. That idea has the potential to progress into another example of waste and bureaucracy by this Government, especially given that the Bill grants the Assembly powers to
	make payments to the committee of such amounts, at such times, and on such conditions as it considers appropriate,
	as well as controlling officers, staff, proceedings and the committee's functions. The regulatory impact assessment estimated that setting up such a committee would cost 305,000 per annum, plus 50,000 in setting-up costs. Those are substantial sums for the Welsh taxpayer to bear, and the Assembly's new responsibilities will be carried out with no extra funding from Westminster.
	The Bill seems to grant the Assembly powers for the transport users committee without any provision for the review of such a body. Surely some opportunity must be provided to review the usefulness and effectiveness of this committee. We must also consider the cross-border implications: will those who use Welsh transport regularly, yet live on the other side of the border, have a voice? A minority of people will potentially be left without the ability to air their views on the transport that they use on a daily basis.
	The provision to deliver financial assistance to air transport services in Wales again raises the question of funding. The financial implications are hugegranting the Assembly the power of financial assistance for air transport with no transferral of funds means that support will have to be found within the Assembly's current budget. It looks as though significant amounts of Welsh taxpayers' money, which some might argue could be better spent elsewhere, will be spent on the additional costs of this Bill's proposals.

Albert Owen: To get back to the Bill, it obviously deals with the intra-Wales link between Cardiff and Swansea and the north of Wales. I am expanding on the potential for links with other areas such as business and tourism, and I am disappointed that the interventions from Conservative Members seem to run that down. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West commented on the A55 not being complete. The first thing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did as a Wales Minister in 1997 was to allow that to be complete, because the decay in the port communities of Holyhead was horrendous. During the 1990s, as a consequence of having no infrastructure in place, those communities had the highest unemployment in Wales. That is no longer the case, and I am therefore proud of this Government's record. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) should acknowledge that having vision is good, as that is what makes young economies grow. I am pleased that the infrastructure now in place will allow the Welsh economy to grow.
	I realise that several Members want to speak, so I shall make just two further points to the Minister. First, if we are talking about full integration, I am slightly disappointed that there is less emphasis on sea transportation. Secondly, as I raised in an intervention, if subsidies are not given to the intra-Wales service, will he consider whether they could be extended to link Cardiff with Dublin or Dublin with London via the Welsh route?
	I very much welcome the Bill returning to the House, and I will support its Second Reading.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed from a sedentary position that he has a strong view on the matter. That is fair enoughhe is entitled to his view. I believed at the time, however, and continue to believe on the basis of the evidence that rail privatisation has decimated the service, which should have been kept intact and, at that time, in public ownership.

Lembit �pik: At the time I did not think so, but looking back I would give anything to return to the flawed but much more coherent days of British Rail compared with what we have now. By implication, I assumed that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and his colleagues all continue to believe that privatisation of the rail services was a good idea. It is just as well, then, that their party did not get re-elected, because if, even today, they have not learned the lessons of privatisation of the rail service, that suggests that British transport will not be safe in the hands of a Conservative Government.

David Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the take-up for such a service is more likely to include civil servants, Members of the National Assembly and Members of this House? Frankly, commercial demand for that service is minimally low.

Lembit �pik: The only reason I am going on about it is, if I may say so without sounding childish, that the hon. Gentleman started it. [Interruption.] Oh, yes he did! If he had not told us that he was sceptical about the case for regional air networks, I would not be telling him that he should be more confident about it.

Lembit �pik: I could provide many examples of industrialists who regard access to good airport facilities in Wales as very important. There is Carlo Sidoli, who runs Sidoli's ice cream in Welshpool. He often brings customers in and out. We all agree that that is important reason for having an aviation infrastructure.
	As to whether civil servants or others use the network, I believe that there is a good case for having aircraft with fairly small capacity to take the small number of people who go from north to south Wales on a regular basis in an efficient fashion. The hon. Gentleman mentions civil servants using it. That may well be the case, but he must recognise that one of the things that suppresses north-south economic development in Wales is the fact that people cannot make the journey quickly. The hon. Gentleman disagrees, but I can assure him that there would be a feasibility study before any system was set up. John Pritchard of KPMG has just completed a feasibility study of the expansion of Welshpool airport. He took the view that there was an economic case for having an extended runway and two new hangars in the area.
	I will resist the temptation to argue in any further detail about what sort of scheduled services should be set up, but it is possible to find an aircraft for every occasion. One could use an eight-seater Piper PA31 Navajo, for example, which can transport people at about 195 mph; or one could opt for an Dornier 328 or Dornier ATR42. Aircraft can be found to fulfil the demand.

Lembit �pik: Actually, there were two of them. I am rather surprised by the apparent level of ignorance of the existing information. What we do not have is a detailed assessment of what the schedules should be and precisely which aircraft should be used, but all that will be done in time. I am satisfied that enough work has been done to convince me and others that such a small aircraft network is a viable proposition for Wales.

Martin Caton: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen), I was a member of the Select Committee that, in the last Parliament, undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill in its original draft form, in partnership with the Assembly's Economic Development and Transport Committee. It was the first time that a Committee of the House had worked formally with a Committee in a devolved Administration, but I am sure that it will not be the last. It proved to be a happy and successful collaboration, although it was not without its problems.
	The tightness of the timetable prevented our evidence collection from being as comprehensive as we would have liked, and the Government's announcement of the demise of the Strategic Rail Authority made major clauses in the draft Bill, and recommendations in the respective Committee reports, redundant by the time we debated the draft legislation in the Welsh Grand Committee last July. I am pleased, however, that the Railways Act 2005 picked up provisions relating to railway services that were originally part of the draft Wales Bill, and, indeed, the spirit of the Select Committee's recommendationscontrary to what the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) suggested in his opening remarks.
	The National Assembly now has a clear role in any franchise that is Wales-only or includes Welsh services. It is responsible for determining priorities for local and regional services and setting fares for them, and it has a greater role in developing stations and local lives. I welcome that legislation and its contribution to the integration of transport policy in Wales. That is, in fact, very much the subject of the Bill: empowering the National Assembly to develop and implement policies that will contribute to a safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient, economic transport system to, from and within Wales.
	I want to concentrate on the issues on which the Select Committee focused. I congratulate the Government on their positive response to many of our recommendations. The improvements to what was actually a pretty good draft Bill demonstrate again the value of pre-legislative scrutiny by Select Committees. Of the 14 recommendations that were relevant after the SRA announcement, eight have been accepted by the Government and included in the Bill.
	The original draft Bill left the rail passengers committee and the National Federation of Bus Users in Wales as the separate representative voices of users of most public transport in Wales. As a key objective of both bodies has for some time been the better integration of transport modes, it seemed logical to us to call for a provision to empower the Assembly to create a single, joined-up public transport passengers committee. Apart from the common-sense integration argument in its favour, the establishment of such a body will eliminate the historic disparity between funding for bus users' representatives and funding for rail users' champions. The Government agreed with us, and included the necessary provision in the Bill. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, the new committee will also embrace other public transport modes.
	The report drew attention to the fact that although facilities and services for pedestrians had been given a specific mention, there was nothing about cycling in the Bill. Again, the Government have rectified the omission. We also drew attention to the absence of any reference to environmental sustainability, and the Government have included that in a general transport duty for Wales. I know that that has not completely satisfied environmental and wildlife groups. Like, I suspect, the Liberal Democrats, I received a briefing from RSPB Cymru, which called for the reference to be strengthened, perhaps by direct reference to the Assembly's statutory duty under the Government of Wales Act 1998 to promote sustainable development. It also called for further references to that duty in clause 4, for better discharge of transport functions, and on clause 7, which relates to direct agreements between the Assembly and providers of public transport services. I have some sympathy for those calls, but they are clearly a matter for consideration in Committee. In any case, I warmly welcome the Government's inclusion of sustainability in the Bill.
	The Select Committee also made recommendations to try to deal with concerns raised by local authorities and the Welsh Local Government Association about their future role under the Bill. They were worried about Assembly involvement in the production of local transport plans and the fact that councils were not specifically mentioned for consultation on the Wales transport strategy. We recommended alterations to try to address these concerns. Again, the Government have responded positively and the Bill includes an explicit duty on the Assembly to consult Welsh local authorities, and English local authorities with boundaries on the Welsh borders, in preparing for the Welsh transport strategy. They have also amended the draft Bill so that any decision to refuse a local transport plan for any reason would have to be taken by the National Assembly in plenary session. The Bill has been redrafted to make clear the central role of local authorities in the appointment of a majority of members of joint transport authorities. Those changes will help to ensure that the Assembly and local government work hand in hand to improve transport provision in Wales in the years ahead.
	I now turn to issues where we failed to convince the Government and issues where I hope there might be scope for further movement. The Government have rejected our call to move the transport commissioner, who has responsibility for Wales, from Birmingham to Wales. I urge that, at least, further consideration is given in the weeks ahead to establishing an office in Wales, with staff, for the transport commissioner. But my main appeal to the Government at this stage is on the Select Committee's recommendation on provision for bus franchising along the lines that we have here in London. We believe that the Assembly should be empowered to take up that option if it so chooses.
	From my observations in Swansea and south-west Wales, I have to say that the bus deregulation and privatisation measures introduced by the Conservative party in the early to mid-1980s were not an entirely beneficial experience, to say the least. It certainly did not take us forward to the better, more comprehensive bus networks that we needed. However, the Tories' completely free market approach has been modified and the situation considerably improved with the Transport Act 2000 and the introduction of bus quality partnerships and quality contracts. The partnerships allow a deal between the local authority and the bus contractor whereby the operator invests in high-quality services, more environmentally friendly vehicles and staff training. In return, the local authority invests in traffic management schemes, bus priority lanes, bus stations and shelters, other facilities and timetable information. Moving still further away from deregulation, quality contracts provide for a licensing regime whereby operators bid for exclusive rights to run services on a route or group of routes on the basis that the local authority sets the service specification and performance targets.
	The Select Committee's proposal was to introduce a further option to be available to the Assemblyfranchising. That would allow for a fully regulated regime when appropriate. As with London, it would mean that all services were secured by a transport authority from private operators following competitive tendering. The authority would determine the level and structure of fares to be charged, the structure of bus routes and the frequency of operation. It would be responsible for providing and maintaining infrastructure, promoting customer information and developing technology to ensure that operators deliver safe, reliable and clean buses. That is an alternative model that we are increasingly likely to need as we recognise that competition between bus operators cannot always deliver the services that we require. In particular, that very competition can stand in the way of our dealing with the more pressing competition between continued growth in the use of the private motor car and the alternative of public transport.
	The approach advocated by the Select Committee of giving the National Assembly the widest choice of transport tools possible to achieve its objectives, including bus franchising, fits in with our approach to the governance of Wales. If, as the Secretary of State indicated in yesterday's statement, we are looking to empower the National Assembly as far as possible in the legislation that we pass in this Parliament that affects Wales, the power to introduce bus franchising would send a very positive message, as well as being a sensible practical measure.
	My belief in empowerment of the Assembly leads me to urge the Government to resist calls from admirable organisations such as Transport 2000 and the RSPB, who oppose the provision of subsidy for air transport and therefore want clause 11 to be removed. As we have heard, that clause empowers the Assembly to give financial assistance for air transport services or airport facilities in certain circumstances. I believe that we should stick with the clause as worded, although I do have sympathy with the arguments against subsidising aviation: that it tends to benefit the better off; that air transport is a high and rising contributor to greenhouse gas emissions; and that any subsidy would be more cost effective if directed to rail and buses. I hate to agree with the hon. Member for Leominster, especially in his absence, but those are genuine arguments. The counter-casethat using this power will bring real economic and social benefitswas strongly and effectively argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). For me, though, what is important is that that argument can take place on a case-by-case basis and where it shouldin Wales and, ultimately, in the National Assembly. If we mean what we say about empowerment, we must provide the Assembly with the widest range of choices possible.
	As I said, this is a good Bill, and when it becomes an Act it will benefit the people of Wales. I hope that before it finally hits the statute book it can be made even better.

Stephen Crabb: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Wales to his new role and wish him all the best in it.
	With no disrespect to Members of this House and those of the National Assembly who put their efforts into debating and shaping the Transport Bill during the last Parliament, I believe that it is a modest piece of work that may do little to address the fundamental transport challenges facing the people of Wales and the Welsh economy. At the same time, it contains some proposals that require further thought.
	I do not object to the notion of transport planning at Assembly level, but I am sceptical of the value of grand transport strategies on paper. Hon. Members can judge for themselves what difference the Deputy Prime Minister's much-heralded integrated transport strategy has really made to travel in the UK during the past seven years. Members will recall the Prime Minister declaring in his first annual report that the integrated transport strategy was delivered. Delivering words on paper is all well and good, but what matters in terms of transport is funding, as well as tough, and correct, choices over competing infrastructure projects and the ability to manage those projects ruthlessly through to completion.
	Giving the Assembly the ability to provide a stronger and more focused lead on transport in Wales is not objectionable in itself, but I have three areas of concern. Let me start with what I believe to be an imbalance in the Billthe heavy focus on public sector passenger transport needs. Any successful Wales transport strategy must have the needs of the Welsh business community at its heart. The efficient movement of goods, services and people is vital to a thriving economy and, to that end, business requires reliable, affordable and safe modes of transport for staff and customers, as well as swift access to markets for freight. Based on my observations of the Assembly Government in action and the specific measures contained in the Bill, I am sceptical about whether the strategy will deliver what business wants. Certainly in my constituency, there is a fairly widespread view within the local business community that the Assembly does not always have the needs of businessespecially small firmson its radar. That view is supported by the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales, which fears that the voice of the small business sector is being lost among the voices of public sector bodies in the discussion about Welsh transport needs. That must not be allowed to happen.
	The Bill is heavily focused on local authority and public transport considerations. For instance, clause 2 places on the Assembly a clear duty to consult every local authority in Wales and any English councils adjacent to the Principality in drafting the transport strategy. Clause 5(c) permits it then to consult anyone else it thinks relevant. Why does the Minister not think that there should also be a requirement for the Assembly to consult business? Why should not the private sector be seen as an equal stakeholder alongside the public sector in the drafting of a transport strategy? Given the importance of transport to the economy, dialogue with business over the specific contents of the strategy should not be optional. There are precedents for a statutory duty to consult business. Aside from the section 115 requirement in the Government of Wales Act 1998, which I understand would not cover the transport strategy, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 contains a specific clause requiring the Mayor and the Greater London authority to consult
	those bodies representing persons carrying on business in London.
	Would it not be appropriate, therefore, for the Bill to contain a similar provision? I look forward to the Minister's comments on that point.
	The second area of concern relates to clause 5 and the proposal to create joint transport authorities. At a time when the Welsh Assembly Government are trying, too hard, to persuade the people of Wales that a bonfire of the quangos is underway, along comes a Bill giving the Assembly powers to create yet another cluster of unelected bodies funded by a levy on the taxpayer. The Minister may make the point that those will be lean and efficient bodies, but the costings provided in the explanatory notes are weak. I do not argue with the need for local councils to work closely together to deliver integrated transport networks that match travel patterns rather than merely matching local authority boundaries, but could that objective not be met through other means? For example, my local authority, Pembrokeshire, already participates in the south-west Wales integrated transport consortiumor SWWITCHwhich comprises four authorities working closely together and developing a regional strategic transport framework. Should not that framework form the basis on which each constituent authority can develop its own local solutions tailored to its specific needs? The regional strategy for the SWWITCH area is quite capable of providing the basis for implementing the Wales transport strategy in Pembrokeshire and the three other local authority areas.
	There is also a danger that the joint transport authorities could undermine local authorities' attempts to deliver integrated transport by separating decisions on transport and access from those made by the local authority on land use planning, economic development, social services, education and leisure. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on whether there is a potential disconnection in that respect.
	My third concern relates to the provisions in the Bill permitting the Assembly to subsidise air transport services and facilities, which have been discussed at length this afternoon. I want to add my voice to those in support of expanded air capacity in Wales. Over the past 20 years, air traffic in the UK has trebled and for the next 20 or 30 years it is forecast to grow by 4 to 5 per cent. each year. That will benefit the major international airports in London, Manchester and the big cities, but the outlook for smaller regional airports is also positive. There is no reason why Wales cannot also benefit.
	I listened to the arguments made by the hon. Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen), which were not without merit. I would have been happier had he supplemented his more visionary arguments with some hard data and statistics about the viability of an intra-Wales air transport network. New routes and services within and from Wales must only be carried forward on the basis of sound commercial principles. The key to successful local airports is the ability to identify and exploit specialised niche markets. That is a risky business and one better left to entrepreneurs, rather than to the taxpayer operating through politicians. The history of state aid to air services throughout the world is littered with examples of subsidies being driven by politicians' vanity, misplaced nationalism and economic irrationalism. For those reasons, I am wary of giving the Assembly powers to subsidise air services.

Stephen Crabb: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am puzzled by how clause 11(2) will work in practice. Perhaps the Minister could outline how the Assembly will test for whether a service would not be provided without its financial assistance. Given the existence of a pot of subsidy, would it not be rational for any company tendering for a service to demonstrate that there is a shortfall in its business plan?

Stephen Crabb: I recognise those arguments, but it would be helpful to see further research on the matter. If companies were thinking seriously about providing such services, one would expect that they would carry out their own market research and develop the numbers.
	I am also surprised by the wording of clause 11 (3), given the heavily constrained regulatory environment in which air transport subsidies can be made. The Bill states that the Assembly may attach conditions to financial assistance. Surely it is the case that the Assembly must attach some pretty stringent conditions if their subsidies are to comply with EC regulation 2408/92. I should be grateful if the Minister would take a moment in his winding-up speech to explain the procedure for ensuring compliance and what role the Secretary of State for Transport will play. Will the Secretary of State merely rubber stamp a public service obligation on any route requested by the Assembly Minister?
	I hope that the Bill can be improved as it moves through the House. It may be a modest piece of legislation, but that is not to say that it does not merit further deliberation and, perhaps, amendment.

Peter Law: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech this afternoon. I apologise for the fact that I arrived somewhat late because of a hospital appointment and a train delay.
	It is a great honour for me to speak in this Chamber as the Member for Blaenau Gwent, and to be able to say that I am here as an Independent Member but also as a socialist. I place on the record my sincere thanks to the Speaker for the warmth of the welcome that he gave me on the day that I first came to this Chamber, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), who has been so encouraging and supportive to me since I came here.
	For me to come here is a great honour indeedto represent the people of a great constituency like Blaenau Gwent, a constituency where we still have the great socialist and trade union values, values that some people in new Labour do not understand these days but I am very proud to represent. We believe in our fellow human beings, we believe in a sense of community and we have a warmth that extends to all about us. I will be pleased to represent those values here on behalf of my constituents while I am a Member of the House.
	So, being the Member for Blaenau Gwent, one has to ask, why and how could the safest Labour seat in Wales, with a 19,500 majority, disappear overnight to become an independent socialist seat with a 9,200 majority? That is a question that many people in new Labour should answer, because it is a question that many people have asked in my constituency. The explanation for that, of course, was the way in which new Labour decided to select a parliamentary candidate in Blaenau Gwent.
	It was unfortunate, to say the least, that good people who had done nothing but support successive Labour Governments for decade after decade were compromised and had their integrity stripped from them by the party. It was very sad to see what was happening. Despite the representations that were made time and again to new Labour, we were ignored, and despite the fact that people stood up and wrote letters, asked for meetings and sent petitionsnot just in the Labour party but in the community in generalnobody listened. That, I thought, was a very sad reflection, because people in this great constituency, who had always been there for Labour, were forgottentreated with indifferenceand when we asked for help there was nobody there to deal with us.
	It was never about women or men; it was about the right of choice. It was about the right of democracy, which is very precious to us all, because our integrity in Blaenau Gwent is as valuable to us as it is to anyone else throughout the realm, and that was the message that came from Blaenau Gwent on 5 May. It was so unfortunate that we came to that situation because nobody was prepared to listen on the new Labour party side.
	But we went forward and decided that we were not prepared to be taken for granted; because no one has the right to manipulate 60,000 electors, no one has the right to tell us what to do, and no one has the right to use us for a social experiment, which is what was being done in Blaenau Gwent. I was reminded at the time of that great quotation:
	The great are only great 'cause we're down on our knees
	Rise up
	and we did rise up in Blaenau Gwent, and that was the result on 5 May.
	So today I stand here very humbly, and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) is not in the Chamber, because he needs to reflect very seriously on the Blaenau Gwent result, and the 20 people who, disgracefully, have actually been expelled from the Labour party since that time because they stood up for the integrity of their own kith and kinthey stood up for the people of Blaenau Gwent and will always be respected and remembered by the people. I find it strange that people in new Labour, instead of thinking carefully about that, have gone on to add insult to injury, to make sure that they cause more damage in my constituency.
	I am pleased to represent a very historic constituency. We go back a long way, steeped in great political tradition. My predecessor is Aneurin Bevan, the man who actually designed the health service. We are very proud of that. The design for the health service was based on the Tredegar Medical Aid Society, which was in a little town in my constituency, and of which he was a member. He was a great socialist and a great statesman. He took that blueprint and designed the NHS, his legacy for the whole of Britain and the envy of the world. It still works well; indeed, I am benefiting from it at present. The name of Aneurin Bevan is held in great respect. We are grateful for his work for the good of all the people of Britain. He is the greatest son of Blaenau Gwent.
	Aneurin Bevan was followed by another statesmanhis biographer, Michael Foot, another great socialist, greatly respected and highly revered in our constituency. More recently, my immediate predecessor was Llew Smith, a good socialist and a man with values who cared for the people of Blaenau Gwent. On behalf of the people of Blaenau Gwent, I am pleased to express our great thanks and appreciation to Llew Smith for all that he did during the 12 years that he was our Member of Parliament through his work in the constituency and in this honourable House to improve the quality of life for his constituents. He is my good friend and comrade, and a man I greatly respect. He will always have a very special place of affection in the constituency of Blaenau Gwent, and I am delighted to wish him and his wife Pam every happiness and health in their retirement.
	I want to refer to the make-up of my constituency and its background. Obviously it is a working-class area and an industrial constituencymining and steel. Sadly, the mines disappeared in the 1980s, due to Conservative Governments, who smashed up part of our community, as many people, particularly in south Wales, will remember; but they did not smash our community spirit, which still exists. The warmth of that spirit can be found throughout my constituency.
	The other part of the industrial equation was steel. For 200 years, the Ebbw Vale steelworks was well known. It was in a valley 30 miles from the coastal area and was so important to the community that the town was built around it. It was a tragic day for us when on 5 July 2002 the Corus steel companyexecutioners and axe men, as I described themclosed that steelworks in our constituency. It had a devastating effect on us. The last 500 jobsquality jobsat the steelworks were taken away and immediately the community plummeted into another era of handouts and soup kitchens. Five hundred families lost their quality of life with the loss of those jobs and the local economy was devastated beyond belief. That was only three years ago. It has been a long haul and our local economy has still not recovered; the effect on the towns in my constituency has been devastating.
	It was difficult for us to deal with that situation. Those great steelworkers at Ebbw Vale had only ever been guilty of productivity, quality and loyaltycharacteristics that had been stamped across the world during the years that the steelworks was in being. So, we lost our steelmaking industry.
	It is a sad reflection that, despite the fact that the Corus cuts were known about nationally, no Minister came to Ebbw Vale to see usnot one. I wrote to the Prime Minister at the time to ask him to come to Blaenau Gwent to see us to boost our morale and to say that the Government were concerned about us. Nobody came, and perhaps that is another reason why I am standing here today as the Independent Member for Blaenau Gwent.
	We have tried to find new industries for the future, but those industries have been very slow in coming along. They have not brought the quality jobs that we need, and I mean the quality jobs that everyone should be able to look forward to. From quality jobs cascades down a quality of life for everybody. Although I believe that the national minimum wage is a wonderful social development and that other measures have been very helpful, we must have decent jobs in the valley communities such as the one that I represent in Blaenau Gwent to provide that quality of life and to let people know that they have a place to take advantage of in the way that other people have always been able to.
	How we deal with that issue in the future is important. Regional aid is active in Blaenau Gwent and it is very useful, but it does not provide enough new jobs and opportunity for the people. I hope that, in my work as a Member of the House, I can pursue the need for the direction of industry to places such as Blaenau Gwent. There is a need for the direction of industry if an area does not have the employment and quality of life that other people take for granted. Everyone is entitled to be able to expect a place in the sun, if that is what we believe in.
	If a constituency does not have the industry and quality jobs that we need, large areas of it will be what people refer to today as socially excluded and deprived. Social exclusion and deprivation are modern-day terms and euphemisms for what hides beneath themit is called poverty. I am sure that poverty is totally unacceptable to any Member of the House, but there is a lot in my constituency and I believe that more must be done to combat it.
	For what are we about here if we are not able to reach out to lift these good people out of the poverty that they are captured and contained in and if we are not able to focus the Government on the need for strategies that will do something positive to fight poverty and to give people the opportunity to have a future and a quality of life that is not there and escaping at present? In my work in the House, I hope to join other Members in focusing on such initiatives and persuading the Government to take more action to deal with the domestic poverty problem that exists, I am sure, not just in Blaenau Gwent but in many other parts of Britain.
	In the 10 weeks since I had a personal health crisis, I have been very grateful to my constituents in Blaenau Gwent for all the wonderful support, messages, prayers and blessings that they have sent me. I cannot thank them enough. That has made a great difference to me in the time that I have not been well. I have also had the great service and support of the national health service, and I was pleased to be able to refer earlier to Aneurin Bevan's creation. It has made such a difference to me and to making sure that, since 5 May, I have been able to pursue my role on behalf of my constituents in the House, in the other place that I work and in my constituency. I am grateful to my constituents in Blaenau Gwent for that wonderful support and their care and concern. I particularly express my thanks to them, and I am greatly humbled to be here as their Member in this honourable House.
	I conclude by saying that I am delighted to have been called to speak in the debate on the Second Reading of the Wales (Transport) Bill. It is a very good Bill that is in the interests of the people of Wales and those who travel to and from Wales. Once again, it offers to give further devolved powers to the National Assembly for Wales in the interests of our people. The measure is positive and follows on well from the Secretary of State's White Paper announcement yesterday, which I warmly welcome because it is in the interest of the people of Wales to devolve further powers. I have a lot of hope for the White Paper.
	The people of Blaenau Gwent will be of the utmost concern to me throughout my work in the House and I will pursue their needs and interests at every opportunity. I know that I come here with their great expectations, hopes and beliefs in me, so I say today, as the proud standard bearer for the great constituency of Blaenau Gwent, that I will not fail them. I will be here to work for them and will be totally committed to fighting to ensure that today's and subsequent generations in my constituency have the opportunities that we have perhaps never seen, although other people have taken them for granted. I hope that that will eventually lead to we in Blaenau Gwent having the opportunity to see the place in the sun that we all want. I give that commitment today to the people whom I represent and I am proud to be here as their Member of Parliament.

Martyn Jones: It is customary in this place to make warm comments about hon. Members maiden speeches. I have no difficulty in admiring the delivery and aplomb of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Peter Law) and the confidence with which he made his speech. I met him when he was a capable Labour Minister in the Assembly and I wish him well in representing his constituents of Blaenau Gwent. I am sure that he will do a good job.
	I would like to draw the House's attention to the background to the Bill and the unique way in which we have arrived at this point. As hon. Members have said, the Bill first appeared in draft form. I am proud that the Welsh Affairs Committee undertook joint pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill in partnership with the Economic Development and Transport Committee of the Assembly. It was the first time that a Committee of the House had met a Committee of a devolved institution to undertake such joint scrutiny. I was pleased that the arrangement followed a previous recommendation of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which proposed joint working with the Assembly in its report entitled The Primary Legislative Process as it affects Wales.
	During the consultation stage on the draft Bill, the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Economic Development and Transport Committee met formally on five occasions and took evidence from 30 witnesses representing 14 different organisations. One of the main benefits of such formal joint working is that it enables Committees of the House and the Assembly to mirror the joint working that takes place between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government when preparing draft Bills. It also allows for the wide scrutiny of a draft Bill from the perspective of both Westminster and Cardiff and, more importantly, avoids the unnecessary duplication of evidence gathered by Committees of the House and Assembly, which was experienced during the scrutiny of previous draft Bills.
	I shall mention the substance of the Bill only briefly because my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen) and for Gower (Mr. Caton) will have covered the detail of the Select Committee report well. The Bill will enhance the powers of the National Assembly for Wales on transport to enable it to deliver an integrated transport policy for Wales. I am pleased that the Government have taken on board many of the recommendations made by the Welsh Affairs Committee in its report entitled Transport in Wales, which was published in 2003. As both the Committee and the Government recognise, there are significant economic, social and environmental benefits to be gained from encouraging the development of an integrated transport network. Far from being just a slogan, I am sure that integrated transport in Wales will make real progress as a result of the Bill.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Minister for that reassurance. During the summer, we will still be down on the services. Perhaps more pertinently, when the Bill is enacted, if such changes affecting services that come into Wales from outside are made in future, will the Assembly having any way of influencing the decisions, or will it be tied down to decisions that affect services within Wales? He may care to answer that question today or in Committee, as it is extremely important. Main line services are used in Wales, even thought they may start and end in London.
	I have already referred to the use of cars. We have a road transport system that has historically not been of great advantage to Wales. In fact, problems with the road transport system have led to economic, social and political difficulties. It has been a historical bane of Wales that roads have travelled through Wales, rather than to Wales. Useful roads such as the A5, A48, A55 and M4 are engines for economic revival on a very local basis, which is extremely welcome in those corridors, but they are essentially roads to meet the needs of others who are passing through.
	On north-south travel, I again hope that the Bill will empower the Assembly to make improvements. I am amazed that there are still places in mid-Wales where only one vehicle can proceed at a time in travelling from north to south. Those places might be in very rural areas where the level of traffic is not particularly huge, but it is surprising to say the least that there are such places on the main north-south road. No one is looking for a 10-lane motorway, but there is a need for a decent straightish main road, dualled where possible for passing, perhaps enabling my constituents to travel to the capital of Wales as quickly as they can travel to the capital of Ireland. It is currently a good deal easier to get to Dublin than to Cardiff. We look forward to seeing the Assembly tackle the issue with vigour following the passage of the Bill.
	We also look for opportunities from the Bill to improve freight rail use. The needs of businesses were mentioned, I think by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) or one of his colleagues. The House will be interested to know that there has recently been a successful experiment in carrying timber by train from north-west Wales to Chirk. That innovation proves that freight transport by rail is no more costly than road transport, and it is better for the environment, too.
	I hope to see such developments on not only the Cambrian Coast line, but the Conwy Valley line, where a possible development involves taking slate waste from Blaenau Ffestiniog for use in the building industry. However, we must ensure that the Conwy Valley line to Llandudno junction is improved to allow that development to continue. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will make the case for improvement with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. Earlier this week, Labour Councillor Trevor Roberts of Bermo, my hon. Friend and I had a positive meeting with the Transport Minister with responsibility for that area, and if we all pull together on that important scheme, it will provide not only an engine for economic regeneration in Blaenau Ffestiniog, but improvements on the line to Llandudno Junction. In conclusion, the local transport plans are a positive step, and I am also pleased by the inclusion of cycling in the Bill.
	In the last Session, the Government intended to introduce a school transport Bill, about which I had tremendous reservations, because it would have introduced the possibility of charging for travel to school in rural areas. I also understand that that provision might be included in the proposed education Bill, when it is published. It is clear that transport to school is part of the wider transport system, especially in rural areas where people use the school bus to get to work. We must examine the education Bill very carefully, and local transport plans will have to take such negative steps on school transport into account.
	The Bill attempts to ensure consistency between local provision, the National Assembly's overall transport strategy and the regional co-ordination structure of JTAs. I welcome that provision and I am glad that the Government agree with the Welsh Affairs Committee that the majority of JTA members should be from local authorities. As a previous member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am glad to see that our work has borne fruit. And I am equally glad that the Government have heeded the Committee's call to set up a public transport users committee, which will play a vital role in shaping the development of services.
	We have already discussed support for other forms of public transport and I want the public transport system in Wales to be dynamic and developing. I know that subsidy is a dirty word for some hon. Members, but we should examine subsidising innovative forms of public transport. I look forward to the proposed super buses, which will transport people from north Wales to south Wales in extreme comfort, perhaps almost as quickly as by air transport. Many people, including tourists, use the long-running TrawsCambria service, which shows that demand exists for such provision.
	Hon. Members have already referred to the telling points made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about promoting sustainable development. As I have said, I also note that the Department of Transport will retain responsibility for aviation policy in Wales and that funding for air transport will not be transferred to the Welsh Assembly Government. I therefore hope that the Welsh Assembly Government apply for European moneys to develop the air service. I think that a service from north to south Wales would carry not a large number of passengers, but key passengers from the business sector and local authorities in my area and others in north Wales to Cardiff and back. That can only be good.
	Overall, the Bill is a positive, if slightly limited, step forward and I look forward to further discussion in Committee.

Si�n James: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on Second Reading of the Transport (Wales) Bill. I am confident that it will provide the people of Wales with a blueprint for further development of a sustainable, fully integrated modern transport system, fit for the 21st century, which will meet the needs of all our constituencies and communities, such as mine in Swansea, East.
	I feel qualified to speak in the debate because my interest in Welsh transport matters was gained not only as someone who relied extensively, when a young mother, on public transport, but as a former employee of the rail industry. For several years, I worked for the rail operators in Wales as an Association of Train Operating Companies representative and on behalf of individual rail operators. During that time, I was also a member of the Wales transport forum and saw the introduction of innovative schemes such as the golden telephone line to provide travellers with an easy, bilingual, one-stop service for all rail, bus and ferry timetables.
	I was also deeply involved in the negotiations for the single Welsh rail franchise, a plan that reduced the number of rail operators from a confusing seven to two. In that role, I undertook a great deal of cross-border work, working closely with colleagues in Shropshire, the west country, Liverpool, Manchester and even as far south-east as Sussex and the outer-London area.
	The Bill provides for great opportunities. Its aims and objectives provide a clear and coherent way forward. We want transport provision that meets the requirements of local people and is part of a joined-up transport strategy, devised and managed in Wales. I know from my work in the past that that is what people want.
	When I worked in the industry, I travelled back and forth across Wales, meeting user groups, rail and bus operators and working closely with some of the transport forums that some hon. Members have mentioned. They were clear that a joined-up approach, which embraced wider issues such as funding, road congestion and airport development, was needed. Time and again, I listened to their comments and discussed their communities with them, and I realised that people have a pretty good idea of what they need and how services tailored to meet local transport challenges can and will enable people to go about their daily lives more easily and effectively.
	I am hugely optimistic about the Bill. In the past six years, Westminster and the Assembly have worked together to deliver our aspirations. Their constructive co-operation has identified many key aims and objectives and allowed information and analysis to be shared. Together, we have created a solid base of understanding and information sharing, which I believe will form the basis of future work and development in a Wales that is fully ready to take on responsibility for all transport-related matters.
	Although I am interested in all aspects of transport in Wales, hon. Members probably realise that I am especially interested in rail services. Swansea is a rail city. It has played a major role in the development of rail services to south Wales and south-west Wales. It occupies a strategic place on the south Wales main line and the M4. It is also the terminus of an inter-city service from London Paddington. Many hon. Members rely heavily on that line, which provides a vital link for business travel, tourism and freight to and from south Wales.
	I welcomed the introduction of new services to and from Paddington, but I now discover with alarm that there is a possibility of reducing those services to their original levels. The much publicised and welcomed additional First Great Western services could be cut. I know full well what those increased service patterns and improved half-hourly services at peak times mean not only to me but to my constituents on a business and tourism and leisure basis. Work, education and leisure opportunities will be severely affected. Swansea has prospered under successive Labour Governments. Further investment and development opportunities are vital if we wish to maintain that growth and provide even more opportunity for our citizens. If any cuts in service provision are allowed to go ahead, they could seriously affect future development. I am determined not to allow that to happen.
	What is important here is the ability to have a service in Wales for Wales. The Bill not only proposes greater powers over rail and other modes of transport, but provides an opportunity for greater financial responsibility. If such cuts are not what we should be using our powers against, I do not know how we should be using them. Therefore, I shall be working strongly and closely with the Assembly and my local Assembly Member, Val Lloyd, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and others in the Swansea area. Franchisees need to be more accountable on a Wales level and must justify any proposals for cuts or changes to service patterns that they make.
	I also welcome the proposed establishment of a public transport users committee. Again, I have worked very closely with user groups and I saw what they could achieve. Many of my hon. Friends have talked today about their concerns over cross-border issues. I have worked with many passenger user groups and support groups within the Wales and borders areaorganisations such as the South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium, Taith and the South East Wales Transport Allianceand they are ready and willing to get involved. They are able and capable of growing and developing into the services that we all need.
	I have learned at first hand how greater investment locally, the transfer of powers and proper financial provision can enable Wales to take plans to the next logical stage of development. I expect that several hon. Members might consider that this is not enough, but I can assure them that the work has been done and the plans are in place. I do not think that we will ever lose that ability to have a cross-border dialogue and to realise that, wherever services begin or end and whether they go through or stay within Wales, it is in all our interests to have a joined-up railway system.
	Excellent channels of communication already exist and that needs to continue. I welcome the Bill, which truly reflects our commitment to the localisation of services and greater regional responsibility. This partnership approach will build on the existing work and utilise best practice, developed over several years of joint working. The services exist in many places; we now need to build on them. The Bill offers the people of Wales the tools to achieve a better, more integrated, funded and sustainable service, which is the key to improving our public transport services.

David Davies: I confess to having something of a sense of dj vu today, first because many of the issues that we have discussed are ones that I discussed in the Welsh Assembly Economic Development and Transport Committee and, secondly, because over many years I have enjoyed bouts of verbal sparring with the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Peter Law), who is just leaving the Chamber. For a while, he was a Minister with responsibility for these issues in the Welsh Assembly, and I am delighted to see him here this afternoon.
	I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's maiden speech. I disagree with some of the content, but no one could dispute the fact that it was given in the tradition of the best speeches that are made in the House. It came straight from the heart and was made without notes. He made some extremely good points. Most Opposition Members would very much agree that those who stand for Parliament should be selected on merit, not on the basis of their sex. Whatever our past political disagreements, I have no doubt about the hon. Gentleman's ability to represent his constituents.
	There is no doubt either that Wales's transport system needs to be greatly improved as it suffers from many problems. The Bill draws attention to some of those and is a genuine attempt to address them, although I have reservations as to how effective the proposed solutions are likely to be.
	An issue mentioned early in the Bill, but which has not yet been discussed is safety, an issue close to the hearts of many on both sides of the House. One thing that has particularly concerned me over the years is the difference in approach in Wales and in England to the designation of speed limits on trunk roads. Far too many deaths and serious injuries of pedestrians have occurred on trunk roads in Wales, yet it appears to take far too long to get the national speed limit reduced, even on trunk roads going directly through the heart of small towns and villages. In my experience, that is much less of a problem in England. Anecdotally, one of the most dangerous stretches of road in Wales is the A40449, which goes straight through Monmouth and borders a large school. Numerous accidents and deaths have occurred on it over the years, and sadly, one very serious accident occurred during the past few weeks. Despite many years of campaigning to reduce the speed limit on that stretch of road from 70 mph to 50 mph, conducted by members of all political parties and at all levels of governmentin Parliament, by my predecessor, by me in the Assembly, by Liberal Democrat councillors, and although we do not have many Plaid Cymru members in government in Monmouthshire, I am sure that they would also agree with the policywe have not been successful.
	I want to pay another tribute, however, to my friend the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. A few years ago, I visited him in his capacity as a Welsh Minister, to request a reduction in the speed limit on a trunk road through the village of Llanover. At the time, he promised that that would be introduced, and he kept his wordhe is a man of his word. He admitted to me afterwards, however, that it is much harder to reduce such trunk road speed limits in Wales than one would expect. It is not simply a matter of signing an order and erecting a new sign. That should not be the case, however, because as one comes out of Monmouthshire into Herefordshire or the Forest of Dean, it will be clear, on any trunk road that goes through a village, that the Department for Transport in England has taken proactive measures to reduce speed limits. Why that should not be so in Wales I do not know. I would appreciate an answer from the Minister as to whether the Bill is likely to allow the Assembly to make decisions on speed limits more quickly.
	As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) said, there is also a clear need to introduce an integrated transport policy. I would not disagree at all with that intention. I warn Members, however, that the Assembly has been talking up an integrated transport strategy for many years nowone of the first resolutions that it passed was that it would develop such a strategy. It was not clear at the time that anything prevented it from doing so. We all agree that transport hubs and modes must be in the same place as far as is possible. Where is the evidence, however, that this Bill will help? In Chepstow and Abergavenny, for example, passengers arriving at the bus station who want to continue their journey by train or vice versa are faced with an impractically long walk to get from one station to the next. I do not see how the Bill will help to resolve that problem.
	A similar but much larger-scale problem applies to transport integration at Cardiff airport. At long last, it now has a rail link. Even that rail link, however, is far from practicalit is a small-line link from Cardiff to Rhoose station, which is now renamed, rather grandly, Cardiff international station, as I understand it. Anyone travelling down from the valleys, from London or anywhere else would have to catch a train to Cardiff and then another train to Cardiff international airport at Rhoose, and would then have to get a minibus over to the airport. How many families with all their luggage, knowing that they must get to an airport at least an hour in advance to catch their planes, will choose that as a means of getting to the airport?

David Davies: Indeed. That brings me on to why has the Welsh Assembly not developed some sort of viable road link straight on to the M4, which is only a few miles away geographically? I understand, as I have seen loads of figures on the potential costs, that a realistic estimate for such a fast road link on to the M4 would be 37 million. That is a lot of money but not huge in the scheme of things when we consider what is likely to be spent on the M4 relief road going through Newport. Without a shadow of a doubt, however, such a scheme would add to the viability of that airport and even make possible the development of some of the services that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) mentioned, without the need for various different subsidies.
	That brings me to another problem that could worsen as a result of the Bill. I have noticed a tendency over the last few years for the Assembly Administration to deal with complaints about transport by suggesting impractical and expensive headline-grabbing solutions to meet a need that does not really exist, rather than spending the money at a local level where it could make a difference. We need to ensure that the Bill does not make that even worse by giving the Assembly too many powers to subsidise such grandiose schemes.
	A couple of years ago, I well remember that the Assembly wanted to use 20 million of public money to build a futuristic monorail system, which would have transported people in driverless pods 15 ft above the ground at Cardiff bay from the Welsh Assembly Building to Cardiff city hall, which is only a few hundred yards further up the road. If that pipedream ever goes aheadI understand from an answer to a written question a few months ago that there is still a possibility that it couldit could end up being the most expensive funfair ride this side of Walt Disney in Paris.
	The same mentality seems to be behind the idea to subsidise an air link between north and south Wales. We must remember that in January 2004, Air Wales actually axed a service between Liverpool and Cardiff. In October, it axed a service between Cardiff and Londonnot even 18 months after the service was first introduced. It is all very well giving the Welsh Assembly the powers to subsidise air routes that would otherwise not be available in and around Wales, but we should perhaps ask ourselves why those services would not otherwise be viable. The simple answer is that, although they might suit some Assembly Members and the growing army of civil servants, they would be effectively useless for the vast majority of Welsh travellers.
	The link will fail because there has never really been the same demand in Wales to travel between north and south as there has been between east and west. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire spoke earlier about the history of Wales from the ice age, emphasising the difficulties of getting from north to south, but ever since Edward I took an interest in Wales, travel has been mainly from east to west. People in north Wales look towards Liverpool, just as those in Cardiff and Newport, where I come from, look towards Bristol and London. The M4 and the A55 were built to meet a demand that already existed, and the Assembly will not improve transport links by trying to service a demand that simply is not there.

Lembit �pik: That is exactly why no one is recommending building a motorway from north to south Wales and exactly why a small-scale airline operation would be appropriate for business people and, indeed, the civil servants and others who need to make the journey. The hon. Gentleman keeps on making pariahs out of public servants who need to travel from north to south, but why should they not be allowed to travel quickly. We are not asking for an A380 Airbus, which the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned, but only for a little aircraft to meet a need. Why are the Conservatives so against having an effective, cheap and fairly environmentally friendly small-scale air service in Wales?

David Jones: I too pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Peter Law) on his excellent maiden speech. He and I are old colleagues and friends from the National Assembly, and I know that although there is a certain amount of political distance between us, he will be an excellent constituency Member.
	Clearly, one must applaud the aims of the Bill. After all, an integrated transport system is the holy grail that has eluded politicians over the generations, so I suppose that now is the time for Wales to pursue it. However, I must express concern as to what will be the counter-productive effects of the Bill in terms of local government. Since it was established, the National Assembly has shown itself to be an increasingly acquisitive, centralising institution. That was most recently exemplified by the absorption of the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency and Education and Learning Wales into the machinery of the Welsh Assembly Government so that they became, in effect, arms of government. That process continues in the Bill. It is an exercise by the Assembly in stripping local authorities of their functions in respect of local transport, but leaving them, and therefore local council taxpayers, with potentially most of the cost of any failure. That is all the more disturbing given that section 113 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 imposes a positive duty on the Assembly to sustain and promote local government in Wales. The Bill does not achieve that.
	The truth is that the Bill is in many respects unnecessary in facilitating the delivery of efficient transport in Wales. Local authorities are already working collaboratively in respect of public transport. We heard earlier about SWWITCHthe south-west Wales integrated transport consortiumand the Minister will know about Taith in north Wales. Are the Government suggesting that Taith is somehow failing in achieving the outcome that the Assembly seeks. In what way will the proposed joint transport authorities improve the present arrangements respect of transport delivery?
	Clause 2 imposes an obligation on the Assembly to prepare a Wales transport strategy. However, the 1998 Act already empowers the Assembly to prepare such strategies as it wishes, and it can already require councillors to have regard to those strategies in preparing their local transport planning by using its powers to give guidance under section 112 of the Transport Act 2000.
	I am concerned about the proposed composition of the joint transport authorities, for two principal reasons. First, although the Assembly must consult local authorities before making an order establishing a JTA, it will be at liberty to ignore whatever representations those authorities make. Secondly, clause 4(4) provides that JTAs may include representatives of local authorities among their numbers, but contains no obligation on the Assembly to ensure that there is local authority representation on the JTAs, much less to ensure that local authority representatives are in a majority for voting purposes. Those are matters that I shall wish to pursue at a later date.
	While the voice of local authorities is seriously undermined by the Bill, clause 5(10) contains worrying powers for the JTAs to impose levies on those authorities that will in due course be converted into council tax. No assurances have been given, in the Bill or otherwise, as to the resourcing of the JTAs. In that respect, I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). It is unacceptable that council taxpayers may effectively be asked to pick up the tab for the failure of a JTA given that they may have no democratic representation on it.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) mentioned trunk roads in Wales. That is clearly the area where improvements are most desperately required. I remember the days when I travelled from north to south Wales along the A470 with, frankly, horror. Unfortunately, I see little in the Bill that will improve the powers of the Assembly to pursue a trunk road building programme, which is where it should be concentrating most of its effort.
	The subject of air travel has exercised many hon. Members today and, to mix metaphors, has been a hobbyhorse of the Secretary of State for some time. Perhaps I should say that it is a kite he has been flying. I well remember that before the 1999 Assembly elections he issued a strict injunction that the 13 Members of the Welsh Assembly from north Wales should be required to take an air service that would fly from Caernarfon via Hawarden to Cardiff to get them there safely, cheaply and quickly, as he put it. The problem was that the plane he was talking about could accommodate only nine passengers. That led some wag to suggest that perhaps the Secretary of State was hoping that among those elected would be two right-wingers and two left-wingers.
	Of course, the service failed, as I found to my cost when I was called to the colours of the Welsh Assembly. I made inquiries as to the availability of the service and was told that it had failed and was no longer operating. Subsequent attempts have been made to establish an all-Wales air service and they have also failed. I have no objection to some form of subsidy being used for pump priming, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) described it, but it would be a wrong application of public money to provide continuous subsidy for a service that would be used largely by public employees travelling north to south and back.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) mentioned, the natural routes in Wales are east to west, and air transport links would be most useful on those routes. However, the subsidy regime would not permit public moneys to be used for that purpose, unfortunately.

Ian Paisley: I support the provision of the Secretary of State to impose sanctions on those associated with terror and criminality but regard the penalties as so small in relative terms as to make them irrelevant to those whom they are supposed to hurt. Do we really think that this House is hurting Sinn Fein-IRA by denying them such a miserable number of pounds when they have millions in store and are probably looking for millions more? It is almost laughable.
	I was just saying to myself that if the situation in Northern Ireland were happening in any other part of this United Kingdom, these Benches would be filled. Were someone from that part of the United Kingdom saying that terrorists who had broken loose in Lancashire and Yorkshire must be brought into the Government, they would be laughed out of the House. Some of the things that the Alliance party has said now, I said years ago, and I was laughed out of court and told that I was a madman for saying them. In fact, I was told that never would any southern politician agree to the IRA being disbanded. Those things are now being argued over, however, and strong statements have been made not by Protestants or Orangemen or those who, according to some new Members of the House, are divisive, but by the Front Bench of Dail Eireann today. Statements are on record today that the only way this matter can be dealt with is through the disbandment of the IRA. It must go.
	If the House does not agree with that, it need not say on another occasion that it will do this, that or the other thing. There are those who are propelling themselves, and trying to compel others, down the road of rebellion and republicanism, and on the loyalist side, too, there have been all types of violence. If we tolerate that, we will have no progress towards peace. We should face up to that. This is not a time for argument but for facing hard facts.
	If some of us had said what the Independent Monitoring Commission said, the response would have been Oh, you are romanticising. However, the activities of the Provisional IRA, as outlined by the IMC, illustrate how far republicans remain from committing themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The involvement of armed republicans in the Northern Ireland bank raid and other major robberies has reinforced the message that they are in the robbery and stealing business and the business of destroying peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. The previous Secretary of State made a statement earlier this year about the Northern Ireland bank robbery, in which 26.5 million was stolen. He said that
	a highly organised and brutal gang kidnapped the families of two staff from the bank headquarters in Belfast, threatening them with death unless the individuals co-operated in the execution of the largest robbery that ever took place in these islands.[Official Report, 22 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 170.]
	There is the former Secretary of State indicting the IRA for that robbery, and I ask today whether these are the sort of people that the House wants to place in a regional government of the United Kingdom and whether the House wants to carry out a campaign against the democrats who say no to them.
	I am not speaking today purely for Protestants. I am speaking for many Roman Catholics and for many people who are neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic but of another religion. They have all come to the same agreement. I received a message during the election from a Roman Catholic priest who said, Ian, please stand firm and do not move for our people, as many Catholic people living in areas where republicans are in a majority are tormented to death by the activities of Sinn Fein-IRA. He said that anyone living in such an area would be tormented to death, so it is not only the Protestant people who are saying this. It goes across the board.
	Never before have so many people of all views and persuasions in Northern Ireland said that all this must end and be finished with once and for all. They are saying that anyone who wants to be in government must do so on the same basis as anyone elseby embracing democracy and only democracy because everything else is out. However, the problem is that the Government have never made it clear that the train will leave the platform without them. I issue a solemn warning to the Government, as I did personally and brutally frankly to the Taoiseach yesterday: if the Taoiseach and Mr. Blair try to make something out of an IRA statement that is not in it and if the statement is not followed with immediate action to prove its veracity, the situation will be even worse because people will say that the Governments are not prepared to stop this and that they are with those men and their activities.
	The Independent Monitoring Commission was set up and approved by the Governmentnot by us; we had nothing to do with itand I have to say that it has proved to be upright and honourable. We did not support its setting up. We thought that there were enough international bodies looking into Northern Ireland without having more foreigners coming in. However, the commission has been honourable and honest in facing up to facts. These are the facts and they should not be taken as facts from me, the Democratic Unionists or other loyalists, but as the facts from the IMC.
	It is interesting to note that at the end of September the police discovered 10,000 rounds of ammunition suitable for use in assault rifles of a type not previously found in the Province, so there is new weaponry. That may have been only part of a larger consignment, and it demonstrates PIRA's continuing efforts to maintain its preparedness. The IMC said that intelligence it had received led it to believe that PIRA members had been involved in the murder of Robert McCartney, and that the killers had acted on the orders of a local commander. Furthermore, they had then sought to obstruct the police investigation, forensically cleansing the scene of the crime and intimidating witnesses.
	I welcome the fact that people have been arrested for that. I trust that the truth will be brought out vigorously by the prosecuting officers of the Crown, and that the people who committed the murder will be called to account. I salute the sisters and partner of Mr. McCartney for their bold stand across the world to obtain justice for the one who was killed; but he is only one of hundreds and hundreds.
	Members should go with me to see the people who are vegetables and have been forgotten. They should go and see the people who have no legs, or no arms, or cannot see. After the Abercorn bombing, arranged by Gerry Adams when he was in charge of the IRA, a member of my congregation was a vegetable for more than 10 years. I used to visit her regularly. Poor woman. We should consider not only the people who died, but the people who lost any enjoyment of life, and also the people who attend to them with all the tenderness of love, while knowing that those whom they are loving cannot understand that they are loved. I say to the House that we have a responsibility to stand up now.

Peter Robinson: I am grateful for that clarification, but the anomaly could still arise that the Secretary of State decides to cease funding Sinn Fein from Westminster, but permits Sinn Fein to be funded from Stormont. That would be inconsistent, so I am not sure why the Secretary of State dallies on the issue.
	The Government attempted to bring the republican movement along by bringing it in to the political fold. They hoped that they could wean republicans off violence and criminality and that republicans would be so grateful that they would become new-born democrats. The reality, of course, has been very different: they have come into the fold, but they have brought their bad habits with them. They have not given up their past. They hold on to their weapons, continue with paramilitary activity, and still have the largest criminal empire in the whole of these islands. Those are the facts and to this date, nothing in connection with that behaviour has changed.
	The IMC's 5th report makes it clear that the Provisional IRA is an active paramilitary organisation, that it is still engaged in all types of paramilitary and criminal activity, and that it has a high state of readiness for paramilitary action. It is in the light of that reality that the Government must look not just at this issue, but at a series of issues.
	During the House's original debate on this issue, we argued that if the Government were serious in wanting to impose a penalty on Sinn Fein, they would have to consider a meaningful one. I find it difficult to think of any penalty that will have less impact on the republican movement than a fine of 100,000 or so. In just the past six months, this organisation has carried out a bank robbery, driving off with 26.5 million. It engages in ongoing racketeering, fuel smuggling and the sale of all manner of counterfeit goods. It has its operations along the border. It intimidates developers and builders, who have to pay it regularly. All that has gone on consistently. When I was a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we gauged that some 10 million a year was probably coming in from such activity. These republicans also license drug dealers, whom they permit to sell drugs in their area, and they punish savagely those dealers who do not pay them for the right to sell drugs in their area.
	So we are talking about organised crime of a type that we have never seen before in the United Kingdom. It is major business, and the Government's hope and expectation is that the lure of government places in a Northern Ireland Assembly might be sufficient to wean the republican movement away from this major business. Anybody who looked at what happened last December should have learned a lesson. Last December, we were negotiating with Her Majesty's Government, and having talks with the Government of the Irish Republic on matters pertaining to the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Moreover, meetings were taking place principally between Sinn Fein and the Government of the Irish Republic, but also Her Majesty's Government.
	While all that was going on and we were discussing in good faith how we might set up an Executive in Northern Ireland, the Sinn Fein leadership, the main participants in which are synonymous in their principles with the leadership of the IRA, were planning a bank heist. While they talked to Ministers about ending criminality, they were considering the details of their next criminal exploit. Does that not indicate something of the mindset of the organisation with which we are dealing today? It indicates clearly that these people's hope, expectation and intentionwhatever the wording used on that occasionwas to give up certain elements of their paramilitary activity, but not those which allow them to keep control of their areas. A knee-capping here, an exiling therethey still want to be able to carry out such activities, to keep their rule imposed on the people in the Catholic enclaves. The one thing that they will never give up is their criminality.
	The republicans do not consider themselves to be involved in criminality, as we know. According to their theology, they are the legitimate Government. As the Assembly Member for Foyle said, activities carried out in the name of that Government are legitimate, not criminal. To take one specific case, the McConville murder was therefore not considered to be a criminal event. The republican organisation feels that it has the legal authority to rule on the whole of the island of Ireland, and that everything that it does is therefore legitimate.
	To deal with those people, the Minister must learn a new languagethe language of republicanspeak. It is very different from what the facts or history of Ireland suggest.
	The republicans' intention to maintain their criminal empire and paramilitary control of their areas will not be changed in any way by the paltry penalty imposed by the order. We need a root-and-branch punishment of the republican movement. If the Minister wants to impose a penalty, he must do so at every level of government.
	In local government, councillors take an oath when they are elected that they will not engage in any activity that promotes a paramilitary organisation. I think that the republicans have about 120 councillors: each one promotes an organisation that is inextricably linked to paramilitary activity, and is therefore in breach of that pledge. No action has ever been taken against them under the law. We need effective legislation to ensure that there are financial penalties at all levels of governmentlocal, Assembly, Westminster and European. After all, it is this House that pays the salaries of UK Members of the European Parliament.
	If the Government want to be serious, they must act in the way that I have set out. If they do not do so, it will be clear that the order is merely a matter for public consumption, so that people think that the Government are doing something. In reality, however, it will have no impact on events.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson)it has been a while since I have been able to make that particular comment. He is of course absolutely right. During Northern Ireland questions yesterday I raised the way in which the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service battalions are being treated. There is uncertainty about their future and their morale is low. They are being kept in the dark, yet at the same time their members are targeted and their members' families are intimidated. I understand the difficulties involved in thinking ahead about the future deployment of the regiment and the Home Service battalions, but will the Minister understand at a human level the difficulty of the situation for the soldiers and their families because uncertainty surrounds them, yet they still face threats and intimidation? At the same time, they watch the political process and see how the people responsible for such threats and intimidation continue to be treated as though they are democrats.
	It is time to remove the veto that the IRA has over the political process. I am told that the statement we were promised will be delayed until perhaps Augustwhen the parade season has ended. There is a desire to see how the summer goes before the statement is made, so we will have yet further weeks and months of delay and procrastination. Why does one have to delay to become a democrat? One either is a democrat, or one is not, but on the basis of the IMC report, Sinn Fein-IRA clearly are not democratic in their entirety or committed to exclusively peaceful means. I tell the Minister that the Secretary of State should take the initiative. He should recall the Assembly. The Assembly should then move to exclude Sinn Fein, but if it is not excluded, he should use his powers to do that. The Social Democrat and Labour party is absent from the House today, and also absent is its courage to step forward and enter a voluntary coalition with the rest of the democratic parties. Perhaps it is time to put things up to that party as well.
	I want to touch on two other issues on the subject of the financial sanctions, which the Minister has announced will be continued. Between 1999 and 2004, some 14 million was given to ex-prisoners' groups in Northern Ireland through funding for various projects. Now that is a lot of money. The majority of it has gone to republican ex-prisoners groups. I could list those, but I am afraid that my grasp of the Irish language would fail me. Suffice it to say, we are talking about a great deal of public money going into ex-prisoners groups.
	Contrast that with the treatment of some of the victims groups. Families Acting for Innocent Relatives is based in south Armagh. It received a letter yesterday from the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister saying that its application for peace and reconciliation funding for its memorial centre in south Armagh had been rejected. FAIR was looking for 200,000 of capital funding for the purchase of that centre, which provides valuable support to the victims of terrorism.
	South Armagh has been described as bandit country. It was a hotbed of IRA activity. Many people were murdered there. I think of atrocities such as Kingsmill, where 10 Protestant workers were lined up against a minibus and shot down in cold blood, and the attacks on Tullyvallen Orange hall and Darkley gospel hall. I could go on. There is a litany of atrocities carried out by the IRA in south Armagh. FAIR is a victims group, representing a large number of those victims and their families. It applied for 200,000 of capital funding for a project for a memorial centre and it was turned down. Yet 14 million has gone to ex-prisoners groups since 1999. Surely there is an inequity that the Government need to consider.
	If the Government are in the business of applying financial sanctions and are not prepared to fund the victims, they should have the decency to cut off the funding to the ex-prisoners groups. When we consider some of the activities covered by the IMC report, we find that the people on the front line of those riotous situations who order the beatings and shootings are often the people who were released from prison and who are benefiting from the funding from the ex-prisoners groups.
	My final point is on released prisoners and sanctions. When the Government included in the Belfast agreement the provision for the early release of terrorist prisoners in Northern Ireland, it was an emotive issue. We deeply opposed it. Provisions were built into the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 which enabled the Sentence Review Commission, established by the Act, to review the release of any prisoner who was deemed to represent a threat to public safety.
	The Minister may be aware of the recent situation involving one of those released prisoners, Sean Kellythe infamous Shankill bomberwho, along with his accomplice Thomas Begley, murdered nine innocent people on the Shankill road. When Kelly was imprisoned, the judge said that he should spend the rest of his life in prison. He was convicted of nine murders and given nine life sentences, but he was released after just seven years in prison under the terms of the Belfast agreement. That is less than one year in prison for each life Kelly destroyed. Yet on three occasions, he has been pictured in the Ardoyne at a riotous situation. I am not going to go into the detail of what Kelly may or may not have been doing. I simply pose the question to the Minister: has the Secretary of State, using his statutory power, referred the case of Sean Kelly to the Sentence Review Commission?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and he will know at first hand the sense of deep frustration felt by his constituents in north Belfast, particularly on the Shankill road, about the manner in which Kelly continues to be present at riotous situations while the Government turn a blind eye.
	I contrast that with the case of Ken Barrett, who was recently convicted with the murder of the solicitor Pat Finucane. Barrett is alleged to have been one of the Ulster Defence Association team that murdered Pat Finucanethe Ulster Freedom Fighters team. Recently, Barrett applied for early release under the terms of the Belfast agreement, as his crime had been committed before 10 April 1998. He was therefore eligible to apply for early release. His application was rejected by the Sentence Review Commission on the basis that he was a danger to the public. I simply pose to the Minister, and through him to the Secretary of State, this question: how is Ken Barrett more of a danger to the public than Sean Kelly? I think that we are entitled to an honest answer to that question.
	I am not here today arguing for the release of any prisoner: let me make that absolutely clear. It is the double standards that are the issue. If somebody murders nine Protestants on the Shankill road, they walk free; if somebody murders a Roman Catholic solicitor in Belfast, they stay in prison. Is Pat Finucane's life worth more than that of one of the children whom Sean Kelly murdered in that fish shop on the Shankill road? I do not think that the people of the Shankill would accept that the life of one of those children whom he murdered is any less valuable than that of Pat Finucane, so why do the Government act as they do, through the Sentence Review Commission, which is supposed to be independent? We just wonder why it happens to be that the people who are returned to prison or stay there happen to be those who murdered republicans, and that those who murdered Protestants are those who are set freeand when they are free, they seem to be able to engage in whatever activity they wish, without any sanction. I hope that the Minister will address those issues.

Paul Goodman: I see the Minister nodding, which indicates that she will write to me if she has to do so.
	Will there be the computer facility to withhold part of an individual's record from NCRS, as I have seen it argued that there will be no such facility? What trials, if any, of the envelope software in clinical settings have taken place, and what did they find? In his letter to me, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said that in certain circumstances, health professionals will be able to break the envelope seal. He wrote that
	this action can only be justified in specific circumstances, is audited and can be notified to the patient.
	Who, therefore, will decide whether the patient is notified, and how?
	In his letter to me, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said that in some cases,
	care professionals can themselves create a legitimate relationship.
	Under what circumstances precisely can they do so? Is my constituent correct in asserting to me that third parties will be able to access a patient's data without that patient having the right to know whether third parties have accessed their data and whom those third parties were? The story that I sketched out at the beginning was an illustration of the claim that my constituent has made to me.
	What assessment will the Department make of the effect on the nation's health of significant numbers of people, potentially, withholding important information from their doctors or from other health professionals because of concerns about confidentiality? What assessment will it make of the possibility of hackers altering data held on the NCRS and falsifying medical or other records? Will the NCRS and the proposed identity cards database be linked and, if so, under what circumstances is it proposed that the police or other agencies will have access to the records held on NCRS? Finally, what assessment of the clinical need for an NCRS has the Department made?
	In conclusion, I recognise that serious issues about patient confidentiality and privacy arise under the current part-computer, part-pen-and-ink system, so the concerns that I raise are not entirely new. I acknowledge that a national computer system might, in some circumstances, help treat patients quickly who would otherwise not be treated so quickly. I realise that Governments of any colour have a difficult task in striking the right balance between, say, developing patient treatment on the one hand and protecting patient privacy on the other. Above all, I concede that new technology itself throws up new challenges to confidentiality and privacy.
	I remain concerned that there are, in respect of NCRS and as my hon. Friend the shadow health Secretary said, serious unresolved issues on patient confidentiality. I have tried to raise some of those issues in the context of the story, which is still unfolding, of my constituent, Helen Wilkinson.

Caroline Flint: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on securing the Adjournment debate today. His purpose has been to do what he can, quite properly as a constituency Member, to voice the legitimate concerns of his constituent. I fully understand those concerns. In many areas of lifewhether in relation to banking, criminal or health records, for examplethere is a requirement on the Government and the agencies with which they work to ensure that they maintain public confidence in the development of new technologies.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the best intentions lie behind these new developments. We want to ensure that people can get the best possible health care, and it is important to recognise that health care can be offered in a number of different environments, which involve different sorts of health professionals in both primary and secondary care. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that our intentions are right, but that there is an important task for us all in ensuring that we have the public's confidence in what we are trying to develop.
	I want to put on record my sympathy, which I am sure is shared by everyone who has heard about the distress experienced by Ms Wilkinson, for her distress at finding an embarrassing error in the record of her NHS treatment. I am very pleased to be able to confirm that that error has now been expunged and that we have respected Ms Wilkinson's further request that all her patient data be removed from the existing national database, although we have certain reservations about the consequences of doing so.
	We recognise that there will be some peopleMs Wilkinson is, I think, the first, but no doubt there will be otherswho feel so strongly about what they see as threats to the confidentiality of their personal health information that they will seek to remove any possibility of this information being shared within the NHS. Let me make it clear, however, that we do not envisage any circumstances in which patients who choose to have some or all of their records deleted will be deregistered from the NHS or otherwise denied NHS care against their wishes. That is an important point in the light of what the hon. Member for Wycombe said in his speech this evening.
	What we cannot do, of course, is provide people who do not wish to be part of the new joined-up care records system with the benefits that an electronic record will provide. I would now like to focus on the new system of electronic records that we are in the process of introducing through the national programme for information technology, and the benefits that it will bring. In doing so, I hope to touch on some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If I cannot respond in full now, I shall certainly write to him in due course.
	Some health records are already held on computers, but muchI would suggest too muchis still kept on paper. Records on paper can present challenges in respect of security of information. The shortcomings of the NHS, as it continues to depend in the 21st century on record-keeping and communication systems invented in the 19th century, are all too transparent. Records are not always available to staff providing care; handwritten entries in the record may be difficult to read; and important information may be missing. Patients themselves are often inconvenienced or put in a difficult position by having to tell staff the same information over and over again. Ms Wilkinson's distressing experience and the embarrassment that it caused her highlight the need for improvement in future.
	We have committed quite unprecedented sums of taxpayers' money6.2 billion over last year and the next nine yearsto revolutionise the way health information is accessed and shared. The key reasons are that electronic records and clinical communications will improve the safety and quality of care, underpin choice for patients, and increase the productive capacity of NHS clinicians and staff, potentially saving huge sums in unnecessary treatment and wasteful litigation costs. I think it will also help us to build a patient-led NHS, give us opportunities to consider how we can better safeguard information and give patients rights relating to it, andthis is importantcreate mechanisms to prevent some of the scenarios described by the hon. Gentleman. It will deal with questions of who will and will not have access to the information, and give patients some choice about who those people should be. It should also allow for electronic identification of people who may gain access to the system when they have no right to do so. That is important in any system involving information, whether it is held on paper or electronically.
	The new system will give health care professionals secure access to patient information, and the means to update a patient's care record where and when that is needed. Errors will thus be more easily identified and corrected. From the outset, the system will hold records on an individual's care in a national computer system so that wherever care is sought, health care professionals can have access to the most up-to-date information.
	The hon. Gentleman opened his speech with an example of what might happen. A receptionist might meet someone at a party, then go back to the practice and try to gain access to the person's records. I am informed, and I believe, that access rights will not enable those who are not involved in the provision of care to see records. Unauthorised access will be marked on the system, and therefore subject to audit. That is one of the opportunities granted to us by an electronic system.
	We have provided the most stringent safeguards for security and confidentiality. We hope that anyone who is concerned about information will be reassured by them. The new system will allow patients to determine whether information recorded in one organisation can be seen elsewhere in the NHS: it will be their choice. Even when patients permit such access, only those involved in their care will have access to their records or to information that identifies them, and they will see only the parts of the record that are needed to inform care. That answers some of the hon. Gentleman's points about the whole health record, and about the possibility that some people might have access to information that was not appropriate. The system is designed to tackle that. Everyone who may have access will be authorised appropriately, and will need a smart card as well as a password. Crucially, the system will register the identity of everyone who looks at the records. That is important as a safeguard and as an audit trail to check that unauthorised access is not being allowed.
	The way in which the new system protects patients' interests is explained in the care record guarantee published by my noble Friend Lord Warner on 25 May. Before the NHS care records service becomes operational, it will be made available to every household in the country. The guarantee makes 12 commitments to patients on their records, relating to matters such as access to records for NHS staff and how it will be limited. Patients will be able to block access to parts of their records to prevent them from being shared by anyone in the NHS except in an emergency. They will also be able to prevent their records from being seen by anyone other than the NHS organisations that recorded the information, although they will have to accept that that may sometimes affect the quality of carewhich, again, is part of engaging patients in their care in the first place. Identifiable patient information will not be shared with any organisation outside the NHS unless patients give consent, the law requires disclosure, or there is evidence that failure to disclose the information might put others at risk. Child protection cases are an example of that.

Paul Goodman: I thank the Minister for giving way. I will not intervene again, because she is short of time. She spoke of an audit trail, and the possibility of tracing the details of anyone who has looked at a patient's records. Will patients have an automatic right to know who has been looking at their records?